Alongside
the facts we have discussed above, the dates ascribed by National
Geographic to the species in question have been selected
in line with Darwinist prejudices. The animals are shown as
following each other in a geological line, whereas these are
questionable. Ashby L. Camp clarifies the situation, based
on paleontological data:

In the standard scheme,
Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several
experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian.
If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus
is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus,
an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan.
Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the
same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would
have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus.
This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and
possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.166

In brief, there are two different views of when
the animals that National Geographic chronologically
sets out one after the other really lived. If the second view
is accepted, then Pakicetus and Ambulocetus,
which National Geographic portrays as "the walking
whale," are of the same age as, or even younger than, true
whales. In other words, no "evolutionary line" is possible.

166
Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," Creation
Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research
Society, May/June 1998.